This is a great image; really informative! I was looking at it in some detail today and would like to suggest some changes, because:
the EFTA now has its largest volume in the part: council of Europe (CoE),not EEA,not Schengen. But there is no country there (and it is unlikely that a country will get there). Would it be possible to get the EFTA sphere completely in the schengen/EEA-shere.
(alternatively, it could go completely in the schengen-sphere as soon as Liechtenstein can implement schengen)
The Euro+Schengen-sphere-part is getting really crowded (no political meaning intended ;-)). No space for Estonia in Jan...
I am not bold enough to date to change the image (and mainly the underlying image with the circles), but would be happy to help if someone produces a new set of spheres that would accommodate the expected membership changes; and makes the EFTA somewhat smaller...
L.tak (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I understand your concerns about the area of the EFTA circle being largely in the CoE with no countries there, but it is difficult to imagine how to change the diagram without it looking unnecessarily ugly and cumbersome.
I do, however, recognise that something will have to be done to accommodate Estonia when it adopts the Euro (if it actually does so next year). Since it will disappear from the EU's blue circle, all the flags will shuffle along, meaning Sweden's place will be empty. This, if you can imagine it, will allow for an enlarged Eurozone green circle, in order to contain the extra flag of Estonia. Wdcf (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It would also be nice if there was a version with text labels of the countries, rather than having to mouseover to identify the flags. -- Mindstalk (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the charm of the diagram was the relative lack of words. Besides you should learn the flags! :P Wdcf (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, in line with my own comments from, June, (has it been 6 months!?) I am making the necessary changes to move Estonia into the Eurozone. The image map will also have to be updated as well. Hopefully I'll get this done within the next couple of days. Wdcf (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The new square diagrams are completely unreadable (to me), and the inclusion of various talking shops (Nordic Council, Visegrad Group, "Union State" for Russia and Belarus, BSEC, GUAM, Benelux, Baltic Assembly) make the diagram unclear and overloaded. Propose a revert to the last non-square version and elimination of all talking shops. CultureArchitect (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Split future Euro / No euro plans countries?
My proposal is to move the "Eurozone" circle to the centre of the "European Union" circle, making room above and to the left of it for the UK, directly left and left/below it Denmark and Sweden, and below it the remaining EU countries, which will have to adopt the euro. A dotted line showing planned euro expansion could then be added.
To be fair, and I know the design geeks (it's a compliment!) are going to disagree, this would look a lot better, and be much, much, easier to edit if it were based on rectangles. You can round the corners if you have to?
Hmm...remember we have to respect the Schengen Zone circle too...an interesting idea - but I don't want to make this too complicated - more countries are likely to join the EU before countries like Poland, Czech Rep. join the Eurozone - if it lasts that long :P Wdcf (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
yes, that's why the UK (and the Republic of Ireland, and Cyprus) would be above the "core" circle while the remaining EU countries would be below it. I don't think it'd be a good idea to include speculation on the diagram: all the EU countries that weren't in EU-15 have an obligation by treaty to introduce the euro, and we can represent that. Croatia and Iceland have been given more concrete assurances on EU membership than others.
I must admit that the entire diagram looks cute initially, but isn't overly useful. Identifying microstates by flag is a bit of a pointless exercise, and it seriously looks like the data has been selected to fit the diagram: we omit NATO membership, EFTA logically does subsume the EU customs area even if it doesn't formally do so, we omit data on free movement of labour (the EU-25 expansion had a 7-year delay on that, I believe).
Overall, I think this is a fun work of art but unfixable (indeed it seems quite difficult to maintain even the current information as things change) in the long term, as well as impossible to read without mouseover. It's not even usable in other languages, where country names and their alphabetical order varies.
Maybe you should visit Andorra or San Marino and tell them their microstate is 'pointless'. I have omitted NATO membership because this is a diagram of European organisations. I have omitted the free movement of labour because this a diagram of organisations and there is no "group of free movement of labour countries". I fail to see why it's unreadable without mouseover - if you don't know the flags of European countries, you aren't really going to be that interested in the relationship between the supranational organisations of which they're members. Wdcf (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that the microstates should be in here; they are just as legitimate as any other (size does not matter!). As an interested person in the subject I have to admit however that I do not recognize every flag with certainty, but the mouse-over clearly solves the problem to me. The inclusion of (European) NATO states however seems very useful to the NATO article, e.g. as the fact that some countries are and some countries are not EU members is a point of interest both in EU and in NATO politics. I would be in favour of having this circle included; or to have two templates, which differ only in the absence/presence of an (european part of?) NATO subcircle... Would be interested to hear how realistic/desirable that is in your views... L.tak (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently, in pages that transclude this template, such as Member State of the European Union, it appears very small, with the text size almost half that of regular text. Differently from normal images, readers can't simply click on it to see a bigger version. And even if a reader makes it here, it still is too small; with the text much smaller than regular. Therefore, I'm wondering if we could transclude a reasonably large version of this onto a page on its own, and add a link to that page to the caption. — Sebastian01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a great picture, and I had been thinking about proposing it as a featured image; I've never done that, and the red tape of Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates seems be tailored for self-nominated images (or photographs). If anyone proposes it; let me know and I will add my vote. — Sebastian01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate it myself, and I can't work out how to go about it, and I'm the author of the image. Wdcf (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the OSCE has the word 'Europe' in it's title, but its members include Canada and the USA, which are hardly European countries. Wdcf (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that this template has a new design. I think it looks overall good, but I can't help but notice that the European Free Trade Association circle protrudes from the Council of Europe circle. I don't see any particular reason for this. I suggest that the Council of Europe circle is just expanded to the left to encompass the EFTA ring. Also, just a side-note: Liechtenstein will most likely be joining the Schengen Area later this year, so be sure to change the template when that happens. Cheddar2012 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.236.224 (talk)
Yes, well they were due to join on 1st March, but then put it back to October without telling me. Wdcf (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
that's unfortunate (both that they did not tell you; and that it is delayed again...). I have reverted (I hope correctly, as it's a complicated chart...), now at least it's ready for November.... L.tak (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Countries that use the Euro as a de facto currency
Would it be possible to show countries like Kosovo or Bosnia that use the euro but are not in the Eurozone and can't mint euro? Or even countries who have currencies directly pegged to the euro, like the CFA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some errors in your statement:
Bosnia does not use the euro.
Unilateral currency adoption (e.g. in the case of Kosovo) is not a "body". See several different discussions at File talk:Supranational European Bodies.png (regarding CEFTA and CTA) mentioning non-bodies.
Likewise, a currency peg isn't really a "body" either.
I believe Italy and the Vatican have an open border, so even though the Vatican isn't technically Schengen, you can access it without a visa from Italy, meaning it may as well be. Ireland and Northern Ireland have an open border as part of the Common Travel Area promoting free travel between the UK and Ireland. Due to the UK not wanting to join Schengen, Ireland hasn't either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not really a 'supranational organisation'. It's more of a group of government which have agreed to some limits on their budgets.Wdcf (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
OSCE, CoE, NATO, EU, CSTO, EurAsEC, (maybe also GUAM or CDC)
I see that there are discussions above about adding some of these to the current diagram and I think having the above additional separate diagrams would allow greater flexibility - to have a diagram for more cases. Japinderum (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not being a member of the EU, they aren't officially part of the Eurozone. In addition, unlike Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican, they don't use it by agreement either. Like Kosovo, they use it because they had unilaterally used the currency of another country beforehand that switched to the Euro. CMD (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not until it's passed and implemented, which isn't expected to happen until 1 May 2013. Therequiembellishere (talk)
Geographically in Europe?
What do people think of a further circle for "Geographically in Europe"? It seems strange that Belarus and Kazakhstan are not in this diagram somewhere. If you move the flags for "Council of Europe but nothing else" to the bottom - separating out Armenia below the rest - and also place Cyprus higher than Ireland, you should be able to get another circle around everything but Cyprus and Armenia. You would then also have space for Belarus and Kazakhstan in the "Geographically in Europe but not in Council of Europe" area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verochio (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to clutter the diagram with countries that are not part of any European Multinational organisation? Wdcf (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This template has long been used on European integration. However, User:TeraCard has repeatedly removed it claiming that is is "wrong", and refuses to follow the WP:BRD process. If there is something wrong with the image, then we should fix it, but the template seems to be highly appropriate for that article. Any input would be helpful. TDL (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Missing logic:
"If there is something wrong with the image, then we should fix it, but the template seems to be highly appropriate for that article." - A wrong image is not appropriate for any article in the English Wikipedia. Also a correct image does not make a template "appropriate".
The Republic of Kosovo isn't part of the eurozone. They unilaterally adopted the euro, but that doesn't make them part of the eurozone. The microstates, which adopted the euro via a monetary agreement with the EU, aren't even listed as part of the eurozone. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to list them beside Belarus+Kazakhstan. Their status is disputed, so better to leave it as it is for now. (We don't list Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.) I suspect the RoK will join the CoE in the not to distant future, so we can figure it out then. TDL (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The CDRN is pretty insignificant compared to the organizations currently displayed. As far as I can tell, it's barely even functioning. (Their website hasn't been updated in years.) So I don't think that's a good idea. Plus N-K doesn't even have any territory in europe. Perhaps someone else will give their opinion on the matter. TDL (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
How about to put the flags in a geopolitic relative position?
I suggest that we can put CEFTA in the right-down(south-east), EFTA in the left-up(north-west), mint-euros states in the left-down (south-west) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haojian (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) --Haojian (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
it is easy to make such circles. Just clockwise turn the figure for 90 degrees, and then interchange CEFTA and CIS states.--Haojian (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
They're not yet part of the Schengen Area - i.e. no passport and immigration controls at common borders. On 1 Jan 2014, remaining work permit requirements for Romanians and Bulgarians were lifted by all EU countries. CultureArchitect (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Croatia is now provisionally applying the EEA agreement, before it is being ratified by all EEA countries in order to fully include Croatia. Should Croatia be moved into the EEA circle already because it is already (provisionally) applying the agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.65.37 (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have prepared an expanded version of the diagram
I have prepared an expanded version of the diagram which so far I have just uploaded to my Google+ account (you can see it here) I have opened a discussion at the wikimedia commons discussion thread about whether I should upload it as a new image (accompanied with a new template for its corresponding clickable image map) or as replacements of the old one. See discussion thread at [3] and please participate if you have an opinion. Aris Katsaris (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The diagram correctly shows that Croatia is part of the European Union, however, where it has been positioned on the diagram is incorrect, as it is not possible to be a member of the EU without also being a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). The diagram shows this correctly for every other EU member state. The Croatian flag currently appears below Britain's Union Flag, it needs to be in the section above instead (in the empty section below Romania's flag). Please can someone look at altering this to ensure that it is correct? Many Thanks 203.173.128.208 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it is possible to be an EU member but not an EEA member. Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013. An agreement on their accession to the EEA was not signed until 11 April 2014.[4] This agreement still hasn't entered into force, but is provisionally applied. So the question is: how should their provisional membership be depicted? TDL (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I tried to move the Croatia without any success. Can somebody instruct me or do the changes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.42 (talk • contribs)
As before, they are still only provisional members pending ratification of their accession treaty: [5]. TDL (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Possible additions
There's a few bilateral organisations / agreements which are relevant, although I'm not sure it would be feasible to include:
I would argue against the British-Irish council inclusion, as it's not just about sovereign states like the ones here. The CTA at any rate covers the same area. The BLEU seems to be almost completely redundant, so I'd leave that out too. The Swiss-Liechtenstein one however makes sense. CMD (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm planning an update to the diagram, which will add five more groupings, EU Med Group, NB8, the Craiova Group, and also a grouping for the Switzerland-Liechtenstein Customs&Monetary union, and also a grouping for those countries which have open borders with Schengen (similarly to the alread existing "monetary agreement with the EU"). The planned update can be currently seen in its png form at https://www.facebook.com/aris.katsaris/posts/10211171378734305 I've unfortunately been unable to fit in some more groupings that might have been nice to have like e.g. the Central European Initiative or SEPA or the South-East_European_Cooperation_Process or the Southeast_European_Cooperative_Initiative. The diagram's already a bit on the crowded side, and further additions would probably require either a more drastic redesign, or at the very least an expansion in dimensions which I wasn't ready to do at the moment...
Please go see the diagram at the facebook link provided and let me know if you have objections to me making the change indicate, or if you approve. I'll make a similar question to the corresponding commons talk page, and leave about a week's duration for the discussion. Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. However, I'm having trouble coming up with a good way to fix it. All EU countries plus Monaco are in EU Customs Union, while Turkey, San Marino, and Andorra are in customs unions with the EU through bilateral agreements. The options I see are:
1. Shrink the EU Customs Union rectangle so that Turkey, San Marino, and Andorra aren't in it, or
2. Add a second rectangle to distinguish the situations. The inner rectangle would be EU + Monaco, with the label EU Customs Union, and the outer rectangle would be EU + Monaco + Turkey + San Marino + Andorra, with the label... ??? "Customs unions with EU" perhaps?
After 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom will no longer be a member of the EU. In fact, it won't be a member of any pan-European entity except for the Council of Europe. It will remain a member of the Common Travel Area (CTA) with Ireland. An update to the Euler diagram needs to show the UK outside the EU but still within the CTA and CoE. Easiest way may be to move the UK flag further to the right in the CoE space with the tie in to the CTA. --IACOBVS (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Including the Baltic Assembly on the chart is a little misleading. It's basically a parliamentary cooperation channel that hosts no other institutions. The amount of cooperation is therefore a lot smaller than for Benelux and the Nordic Council. 213.184.49.21 (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Russian suspension of CoE
I have no idea how to edit this, but Russia needs to be juggled out of the Council of Europe/ outline its suspension from it. Jamzze (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Aspirational goal
Whilst the existing diagram is amazing it would be great if, as an aspirational goal, a version with some of the organisations at Greater Europe included would be great. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It was established last year. I think we should wait out and see what happens out of it of any notability. It's hardly different to CEFTA which contains all the same and few more countries. Other than that, the map itself is getting a little crowdy. -Vipz (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
European Political Community
Should there be a grouping for members of the new European Political Community? I'm not sure if it is officially a body with a membership that can be joined by nation states, or simply a discussion club with no formal rules or official list of members. Recessio (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Croatia is not yet a Eurozone country, yet it already appears as one. Its is also not a full EEA member, but that treaty has provisionally applied to Croatia since 2014. Why can one be included before it comes into force and the other one isnt? The combination of both gives a misleading image of a Eurozone country that isnt in the EEA. The diagram should reflect current realities: its not a Eurozone country until 2023, and the EEA applies to Croatia, even if provisionally.
Has been answered before. It can't be included, for the same reason NATO can't be included. Because it contains at least one country that isn't in the diagram, namely Kyrgystan. Aris Katsaris (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Croatia joined the Schengen area and the Eurozone on 1.1.2023, but it's 10 days later and it's still missing. I've made a fixed SVG version of this weeks before Croatia joined but I'm not sure how to upload it. 88.207.118.55 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
We could, though that would mean adding several countries fully in Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are CIS members). Then this template would become more like a "Supranational Eurasian Bodies". SiBr4("CyberFour") (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Then we could also add the ACD with "and 31 Asian states", the UN with "and 144 non-European states", or any organization that includes at least one (partially) European member. I don't think it matters much if the non-European states are listed with or without flags. (It may be an idea to create a separate template for the former Soviet states only, which could include BSF, CSTO, CIS, GUAM, etc.) SiBr4("CyberFour") (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this image is already a bit cluttered, adding non-European states will only make it worse. SiBr4's suggestion for a separate image with post-Soviet states would be a much better idea. TDL (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
yes, you all are right. I saw Belarus and Kazakhstan are totally single in this figure, as well as other CIS members are semi-single. But now i give up. any way, this suggestion was not as wrong as to add ACD or UN, because main part of CIS is European. --Haojian (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't even see this discussion when I updated the diagram to include the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union. I did not add any non-European countries because this diagram is made for the use of European countries only. CISFTA is not yet in forced, and I did not add the CUBKR. A "Supranational European Bodies" diagram should include organizations/corporations that are not just centered around the European Economic Area states. —SPESH531Other03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, we can change the circles of CIS and EEC into semicircles (i.e. open circles), to indicate outside members.--Haojian (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The image isn't centered around EEA organizations, see the CEFTA for example. The issue is that the CIS is not a European body, it's a Eurasian body. As I said above, this image is already too cluttered, and adding things outside of it's scope only makes it worse. If we are going to include transcontinental organizations, there are plenty of others that should be mentioned (NATO/Asia Cooperation Dialogue/Union for the Mediterranean/Shanghai Cooperation Organisation/Commonwealth of Nations). Better to limit it to things which are actually within the scope of the article, and create a new image for Eurasian states.
Plus, the current image is no longer even a Euler diagram because the circles don't represent sets. I'm going to revert until there is a consensus for the change. TDL (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I know Kosovo isn’t technically a member of CEFTA and the UNMIK is a party to the agreement on behalf of Kosovo, but I think that because this doesn’t have any practical consequences and because Kosovo itself is a member of the European Political Community, the flag of Kosovo should be used instead. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Removing BSEC
I don’t think BSEC should be included in this diagram. The members of BSEC aren’t integrated with each other in any meaningful way, it is just another regional organization “fostering cooperation” and “promoting dialogue between its members”. If we include it, we’d also have to include countless other organizations like it. The CBSS, for example, does basically the same, but for countries near the Baltic Sea instead of the Black Sea. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I was not familiar with the CBSS before your mention here. Honestly, I can see grounds for its inclusion, especially seeing that all members are either EU members, NATO members, or both (with those non-NATO members currently acceding to NATO anyway). - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
We can’t include every single European organization. We have to choose. And I think BSEC and CBSS are a lot more similar to the countless organizations we are not including, than to the ones we are. You didn’t know CBSS even existed, and I’m sure you didn’t know many of the above organizations existed either. I sure didn’t. There are so many international organizations in Europe that we have to limit the template to the most widely known and to the ones whose member states are the most integrated. BSEC and CBSS are neither. Brainiac242 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I beg to differ. While I completely agree that smaller regional organizations should not be included as that would be horrendous to try and visualize on such a diagram and would be near impossible to organize. The BSEC, however, should not be one that is excluded. With 13 member countries, and approximately 350 million inhabitants residing within its member states, the BSEC does meet (if not surpass) WP:N guidelines for its inclusion. The organization is very active, focuses on both economic and political integration activities, and maintains its own parliamentary assembly. It more than qualifies as a substantial entity worthy of being represented here. Archives908 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg#I_have_prepared_an_expanded_version_of_the_diagram){kind=link}
